Canadian Federal Election 2004 - Info & Stuff

[Brad Sallows]

The 5K bodies is useful in itself.  As to whether a fourth brigade is needed or to fill up the existing ones: let it be dictated by the size of the force to be maintained at high readiness and the length of the ATOF cycle.

 

[casing]

I chose government reform. The thing about that is government reform is a catch all.  For example, if the Conservatives get into power and actually keep their promises, a great deal of government reform will occur. Including big changes for defence, taxes, health care, education. All choices in the poll.

 

[Yard Ape]

Actually, Government Reform would be about changing the way the government does business.  Conceivably, this could go as far as constitutional change (but I think something that significant would be an option of its own).

 

[casing]

Actually, Government Reform would be about changing the way the government does business.  

Good point!  Muchas gracias!

 

[mabby]

Eyes Wide Open

Well, here we go again with another federal election.  As I have spoken with most of my friends about how they will vote, one common response keeps coming back.  "I suppose I will have to vote for the party that isn't the worst."  Some Politicians have lost touch with the people who vote.  They do not understand that we can no longer be swayed by lies, slanderous comments and false promises.  That we are educated and more intelligent than maybe they are willing to admit.  We will believe in someone who is level headed, talks and listens.  And, hidden agendas do not top our list of issues.  All parties have them to one extent or another.  For example, the Liberal's hidden agenda is to make whatever promise they want, paint their biggest rival as some fanatical extremist and then once in power do what they wish.  We are NOT interested in a government that takes our hard earned money and pours it into schemes that have little to no value for the tax payer.  We are interested in a government that will make promises to us and keep them, even after the election is over. Unfortunately, we simply have what appears to be no trust for politicians.  So, on election day, regardless of poles, here's a possible ranking for the least worst to worst leader/party, based on media coverage I've watched and heard.

1. Stephen Harper / Conservatives - level headed, doesn't avoid the truth, listens, answers questions, has some reasonable policies. For example. make sure government infrastructure doesn't take all the money available for health care, free votes so MLAs can actually vote according to their constituents wishes, tax relief to help economic growth, actually equip our military so they can defend us and themselves, using effective successful environmental practices from Europe and other countries, etc.  Four years to keep promises.  As voters we are not sure what will happen if this person is elected prime minister.

2. Jim Harris / Green Party - Not a lot of TV coverage in relation to the other parties.  But, the sense is that they are an honest party with reasonable aspirations.  Sound environmental policies. For instance, reward corporations for following Green policies.  They have more of the appropriate candidates running.  For example, a teacher to address educational issues and a doctor to address health care issues.  Four years to keep promises.  As voters we are not sure what will happen if this person is elected prime minister.

2. Gilles Duceppe / Bloc Quebecois - level headed, doesn't avoid the truth, listens, answers questions, good policies but only for Quebec. We as voters don't suppose Gilles Duceppe will ever be elected Prime minister.  Well, not Prime Minister of Canada. 

4. Jack Layton / NDP - Doesn't appear to avoid the truth, answers questions (albeit in a grade 5 sandbox argument style), policies on environment, will not invoke the inheritance tax. Four years to keep promises. As voters we are not sure what will happen if this person is elected prime minister.

5. Paul Martin / Liberal - Doesn't answer questions, avoids the truth, consistently attempts to mislead the public about other party platforms, contradictory policies (cuts in health care, will save health care, scandal, what scandal), will not allow free votes, etc.  Four years to govern as the Liberal Party sees fit.  As voters we are reasonably sure what will NOT happen if this person is elected prime minister. 

Good luck to all Canadians as we hope for a positive change in the way OUR money is spent by changing the political landscape for the next four years.

Please Vote.

Mark Brzak

 

[bossi]

From CBC.ca, a reminder that the elected representatives to the House of Commons are supposed to keep in touch with the mere commoners ... also known as their constituents ...

Analysis & Commentary:  Canada's military: Doing more with less
Russell D Storring, June 25, 2004

Normally I'm not one to get involved or even overly concerned with politics, but with all the hype that is going on about election day, and what type of government Canada might have, it's made me sit down and look at the fine print a little bit more often this election campaign.

I have read all the party platforms, read what the party leaders are saying, and looked at where they want to go, if they form a government. I guess you might say I should have a vested interest in who is elected to government. The government does decide everything about the military, by two simple words: Policy and Budget.

From my own personal experience, I have seen the military shrink from 85,000 when I joined in 1991 to 58,000 now in 2004. The defence budget in that same period had shrunk from $14.5 billion to somewhere around $12 billion, with the lowest point around $10.5 billion.

Over the past decade, the common sentence I have constantly heard in the military has been â Å“Do more with lessâ ? due to budget cuts and fiscal restraint. Despite these cuts, the military has managed to â Å“Do more with Lessâ ? as we have answered the call of our government in Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, East Timor, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Haiti and a score of other peacekeeping and peacemaking deployments, not to mention deployments and training here in Canada.

Although I, as a soldier, simply suck it up, the constant strain of fewer people, less money but more to do has caught the attention of the people of Canada, national and international think-tanks, and national and international politicians, all with various thoughts and ideas for our proud military, but all boiling down to the same few things. Our military is in need of more equipment, personnel and money.

For me at least, this has had a huge impact, but not the only deciding factor on what I have been looking for in the government of Canada. Despite the military being part of my everyday life, I still sat down and read the rest of the party issues to see what would be the best choice for not only myself in my job, but my family as well.

Quite an interesting read when you manage to sift through all the main issues. I obviously have my own major concerns, and these were first on my list to look at for each of the parties. At the top of my list was defence, followed closely by justice, then health and education. There were actually points that each party had that impressed me, and some vague ideas or thoughts from others that turned me off immediately.

I really cannot stand â Å“beat around the bushâ ? answers or comments. I like to get to the point and take a stand. Whether this is due to my military training or not, I expect a leader to take a stand, and not sit on a fence on any issue – especially when it comes to being the leader of this country I am sworn to defend.
Being in the military, you have to take a stand and make decisions, and live with them. Nobody makes the right decisions all the time, but actually making one is half the battle. Learning from the mistakes of a wrong decision is what I consider the other half of the battle. I have found from personal experience that my subordinates would rather live with a wrong decision I make than have me be indecisive or not make up my mind. Of course, from experience as well, making the right decision goes that much further.

Armed with all my newfound information on main party platforms, I broke with normal tradition of not discussing politics at work and started up a quick debate during our coffee break.

I was not overly surprised to learn many of my co-workers' main concern for the election was defence. Rightly so I would tend to agree, since it influences not only us, but our families as well. We did discuss some of the other major issues, but it seemed that the discussion always managed to come back to defence. On one hand, we discussed what the parties have promised for spending, but on the other, we also talked about where they were looking down the road in regards to the military. Many of my friends and I want to see long-term goals, not immediate fixes that do not address the issues. You can only rob from Peter to pay Paul so many times, and we have been down that road before.

Then we switched the discussion to members of Parliament or party candidates. I think the person has a lot to do with how the constituents vote. A lot of people can be won over by an MP who is always addressing issues in Parliament, constantly talking to the people and getting feedback. I know many of my friends and I are impressed with how [Conservative] Cheryl Gallant gets feedback from the community, gets out in the community, and speaks out about what her constituents want or are concerned about. One of my friends even had her come to his family's house on one occasion to discuss an issue that they felt important.

Those are people skills. When you can connect on a personal level, the people will show you their support, and that support comes in the polls. Cheryl Gallant has proven repeatedly that she cares not only about the military (a large part of her constituents), but the rest of the communities as well. She is constantly talking to the people, seeing what they want, and most importantly, listening.

Politics should not be about voting for the party or candidate who will do less harm or lie less while they are in office, but more about getting the people in the government who care about what the people actually want and feel.

That alone might be a deciding factor this election, and I would not be surprised to see the candidates who are out in the communities all year round, not just at election time, are the ones who form the new government. Maybe that will make them stay in touch with the ones they are supposed to represent. For those who do, it will show in the ballots. For those who do not, there is always the next election.